Other Stuff

November 30, 2009

When President Obama gives his address to the nation tomorrow night on how he plans to go forward in Afghanistan, I want to hear him say that either he is all in or he's folding. I do not want him to say anything that resembles something halfway between the two.

I want to hear the word "Victory" if he's all in.

I want to hear the words "complete withdrawal" if he's folding.

I can understand a rationale for either position, but I will not understand a rational for staying if it is not to achieve victory.

General Douglas MacArthur has been quoted as saying "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." And to me, this is a truism that especially applies today because if the President is going to commit more troops as is being rumored, and he is about achieving "Victory", then we are going to take casualties in excess of what we have seen thus far. Like the "Surge" in Iraq, which had the three pronged strategy of Clear, Hold, and Rebuild; the Clearing part is the most costly in human lives.

And it is the clearing part that will make people nevous as the reports of the dead and wounded come in. He will get pressure from people to stop it. And he must ignore that pressure and show resolve.

I don't know if he can do that.

I do not want to hear any variant of the "Biden Strategy". In my opinion Biden is a know-nothing with regards to military operations. I do not want to hear that we are going to implement a counter-terrorist operation; that our soldiers are just there to train Afghans and selectively target al Qaida. We are either going with the full up Counter-Insurgency or we should leave. Completely.

I think we can win in Afghanistan and by that I mean we can deny both Afghanistan and Pakistan as a haven for al Qaida and the Taliban while at the same time making Afghanistan a more stable and freer country. But only if the President is resolved to doing so.

And if he is so resolved, the tomorrow night I want to hear the word Victory.

May 27, 2008

Most people are aware that Memorial Day is a day for remembering the sacrifice of Service Members, even if it is not celebrated that way. And most people probably should take a moment to remember and then have their picnics and bar-b-ques. This is perfectly acceptable in my mind.

The value in Memorial Day is for the people who have personally suffered the loss of a service member; For them to know that there is a day set aside where the country remembers, however briefly, that sacrifices were made for them.

For it is not just the dead who have sacrificed.

It takes special people who are willing to spend long periods away from home, on station, to defend our country. And it takes special families to support them. The families are as deserving of remembrance and honor as are the service members themselves. Because when the notification comes that their loved one was killed in action, it is the family left behind that bears the burden: It is the family that carries on and keeps the flame alive.

It is also good for people to remember that their's is a country for which there are those who are willing to make such a sacrifice. And it is good for people to remember that they are not forced to make such a sacrifice if they are not of a mind to.

For one of the great values of an all volunteer service is that it is a measure of the relative value people place on our way of life. So long as we have a sufficient number of people who are willing to do what it takes to become a member of the armed forces or family member of a service person, we still have a country worth dying for. And when that no longer is the case, we'll know we have taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere.

And it is worth remembering on Memorial Day that there are sufficient numbers of people who, of their own free will, chose to spend some of their Memorial Days away from family and friends, on watch, and for whom Memorial Day will mean something a little different than most of America.

There are people for whom Memorial Day has a deeper meaning.

And it is good for people to remember on Memorial Day that there are people who are willing to do what you are not.

That you enjoy your life and your freedom to choose the service member life or not, because of these people who choose to stand guard for you.

Be they dead or alive, they sacrifice for their families and loved ones;

September 24, 2007

At the high school I attend in Danbury, CT, chapel is a mandatory half-hour period on Mondays. Yet, these chapel services are often filled with political implications; last year, I challenged the reverend to a debate in the school newspaper over his discussion of the Iraq War and Global Warming during chapel. This year, during the 9/11 remembrance ceremony, the reverend suggested that it is time to forgive, and once again I challenged him to a debate in the newspaper.

This is just one example of how pervasive the concept of moral relativism is. My article suggests that we should not forgive, but instead we should hate, or rather, we can hate and we need not feel guilty about it. After all, is anything less than hate anything more than indifference? Is evil just not your thing? Or can you not define the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women, and children as evil?

And if we do forgive, how will terrorists respond to us?

"Perhaps, 'Why, how kind of you! But we couldn’t really care less. See, our concrete political goal is the destruction of liberty and Western society, and we are willing to sacrifice our physical existence on Earth for our goal. Thus, we have nothing to be sorry for.' They might even get a kick out of it: 'So what you’re saying is that if we harm you, you won’t hate us; you won’t retaliate, but instead forgive us? Well thanks so much for the open invitation to kill without consequences!'"

So instead of following a pointless journey (during which we have to give up our values and morals) to somehow rationalize forgiveness, why don't we secure the fate of our nation and the stability and morality of the world.

I end with, "Forgiving evil men following evil dogmas will not bring peace, morality, or liberty. Instead, it excuses immorality. Rather than pursuing a pointless and impossible moral journey to somehow rationalize forgiveness, we should be condemning the actions of these men as purely evil and fighting as well as we know how to destroy this evil. No, this does not mean invade every country that we find evil. But evil exists; evil is embodied in the actions of evil men, and whether we can recognize evil for what it is and fight to uphold morality will be our greatest ethical dilemma as we are confronted by radical Islam."

When the issue comes online, I will post a link so that you can read the reverend's rebuttal.

Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after
Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's
one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.

But that was only the end of Major Combat Operations in Europe (not World War II) and the correct comparison in Iraq would be how long it took us to capture Baghdad. Major Combat Operations in Iraq began on March 20th, 2003 and ended on April 9th, 2003. Bush announced the end of Major Combat Operations on May 1st. So to be generous, we'll use that date. That would be 42 days.

So in Iraq, the Evil Rumsfeld took 42 days what it took the noble Henry Lewis Stimson 1244 days during WWII. (And that was just to end the war in Europe).

Now, the occupation of Germany lasted another ten years. The "Agreement on Control Machinery in Germany" was signed by Russia, France, Britain and the US on 14 November 1944. This began the official Allied Occupation of Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany (aka West Germany up until 1990) came into existence in May 1949 four years after the occupation began. That would be the equivalent in Iraq today of when the permanent Iraqi Government was elected in October of 2005.

So the evil George Bush did in 2 years what the hero FDR took 4 years to do.

But we still aren't done.

West Germany, or the FRG was declared "fully sovereign" on 5 May 1955; for Democrats and Leftists that's ten years after Major Combat Operations ended.

And in case you think the occupation to sovereignty was a cake walk, consider

In the months and years following the end of the World War Two, Allied forces faced a series of bombings and attacks in occupied Germany.

Nazi loyalists attempted to derail the rebuilding process by killing any Germans collaborating with the enemy. And the mysterious SS-Werewolves underground organization boasted of the coming rebirth of the Party.

But we're not done yet.

US Military is still, today in Germany under agreements with the German government. The US is only now, 62 years after winning the war in Europe and occupying Germany, leaving Germany. And not completely.

So given the history of World War II, which Democrats and Leftists think is an appropriate analogy, I say that as a compromise between the two sides ('cause, you know, I'm a uniter not a divider), I say we settle on a time line that says the US should begin its pullout from Iraq in 2013; with an option to stay if the government of Iraq wants us to stay.

Sound fair? Democrats (and Leftists) get their time table, and Republicans get to finish the job of stabilizing the government of Iraq.

March 21, 2007

Being anti-war, for many Democrats is fine, so long as it remains rhetoric. Once it turns to actual legislation, the political divide becomes apparent.

One of the Democrats' chief designated vote counters, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), is actively working against the Iraq war spending bill. The leadership's senior chief deputy whip, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spoke passionately against it on the House floor. And one of the whip organization's regional representatives, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), is implacably opposed.

The disarray in the House whipping operation ahead of tomorrow's expected vote on the bill is putting a harsh spotlight on House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who has the task of rounding up the 218 votes needed to pass the $124 billion measure, but who has not even kept his organization in line.

"There's only one test, and that will be whether we get 218 on the board on Thursday," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who predicted that Clyburn will come through with the votes...

To be sure, House Democratic leaders appear to be making progress toward securing the votes to pass a $124 billion emergency war spending bill that would establish strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces and set a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Clyburn and other House Democratic leaders locked down two critical Democratic converts -- one liberal, one conservative -- yesterday.

At a closed-door gathering of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and an early opponent of the bill, announced that she had changed her position and will support it when it comes to a vote.

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for
lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this
week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

So
far, the projects -- which range from the reconstruction of New Orleans
levees to the building of peanut storehouses in Georgia -- have had
little impact on the tally. For a funding bill that establishes tough
new readiness standards for deploying combat forces and sets an Aug.
31, 2008, deadline to bring the troops home, votes do not come cheap.

But at least a few Republicans and conservative Democrats who
otherwise would vote "no" remain undecided, as they ponder whether they
can leave on the table millions of dollars for constituents by opposing
the $124 billion war funding bill due for a vote on Thursday.

"She
hates the games the Democrats are playing," said Guy Short, chief of
staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who
remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for
drought relief and agriculture assistance. "But Representative Musgrave
was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and
farmers, and they desperately need this assistance."

Of course, it was the Democrats who said they were going to Washington to clean House and get pork out of politics.

And it was the Democrats who claimed they had an anti-war mandate from the people.

Clearly if you have to compromise your "principles" in order to win support for your supposed "mandate" then maybe both your principles and your mandate are just an illusion: a comforting bedtime story that keeps you from being awake all night with the thought of what the Middle East will look like engulfed in a region-wide civil war between secular dictator-states and 14th Century Islamists.

Because here's how things will play out if we leave:

Iran and Syria will support the Shi'a Islamists and Saudi Arabia and Egypt will support the Sunni Islamists to prevent Sunni's from getting slaughtered. And everyone else who desperately wants to keep their dog out of that fight will either get caught in the middle or have to choose an extremist side.

And you think we're generating more terrorists while being in Iraq? Just see what happens when we leave. Because there is no way to go but down, towards extremism.

As long as we remain, and as long as Iraq succeeds, there is a path away from extremism.

But worse than pork, and worse than the legislation is the moral spinelessness of Democrats.

Because if you believe that we are fighting an immoral war, or you believe we are losing, then your position should be to get the troops out now.

Your position should be, remove the authorization for war. Now.

What does it mean that you believe the war is wrong, but the troops should stay for another year? What kind of message does that send our troops in battle with the Islamists who think Democracy is apostasy?

And what message does it send our enemies?

Bribing lawmakers for votes on war and peace is only slightly more immoral than accepting the bribe.

March 06, 2007

So Congress is going to hold hearings on sub-standard health care at the outpatient clinic at Walter Reed. Democrats and Republicans alike are outraged. And so am I.

Democrats are doing what they can to paint every Republican, and especially the President in a poor light based on this scandal. I really don't care. The facts are this has been going on for a very long time: While Republicans were in control of Congress and while a Democrat was President. Soldiers get injured in peace-time as well as war time and the level of care that should be granted them should be the same in either case: Most Excellent.

This is clearly not the case now. Reports of sub-standard housing: bugs, black mold, buildings that are falling apart. ''It wasn't fit for anybody to live in a room like that. ... You've
just come out of recovery, you have weaker immune systems. The black
mold can do damage to people," [Spec. Jeremy] Duncan said.

And it's not just the facility. According to this NPR report, Chris Ryan father of severely wounded Marine Eddie Ryan, the staff was uncaring to put it kindly. This is unacceptable.

All of us who served understand that the bureaucracy of the military is the least effective aspect of the armed services. We accept that and know that if it wasn't for the leaders, the officer corps and most especially, the NCOs, our military couldn't win a single battle. But the level of bureaucratic bullshit that allowed this to go on goes beyond what we grudingly accept.

What's worse is it's not like we don't know how to do it right. The Center for the Intrepid just opened to patients at Brooke Army Medical Center. It's a $50 million, state-of-the-art rehabilitation center. But tellingly

It was all made
possible by some 600,000 Americans who donated to the Intrepid Fallen
Heroes Fund for the center, which is staffed by the Defense and
Veterans Affairs departments.

OK. So now we know the problem. And we know the solution. We will say past Congress's didn't know. But now we do know.

OK. So we'll allow Democrats their political pot shots and we will allow some hearings to they can bloviate and revel in their political windfall.

But at the end of the day, a day that had better come damn soon, they had better do something. They had better find every sub-standard VA hospital in the country and allocate funds to fix it.

Now. Right away.

And not one more American serviceman or woman had better be subjected to anything but the very best. I don't care if you have to move everyone out of the outpatient center and put them in the Hilton while you tear down the old building and put up a new one. Fire every nurse and therapist that was uncaring to the heros in whose presence they should have been honored to be. Get people who care.

But they had better do something now.

And if they do nothing, or wait too long, trying to get people to believe that the Executive branch can do the job without the funds provided by Congress in order to improve their political prospects in 2008, I swear by everything I hold sacred I will do everything in my power to destroy the political career of everyone involved.

July 07, 2005

One aspect of war that is critical for success is morale. The side that loses it can lose the war even if they are technically superior to the enemy.

So imagine if everyone not only in the US, but also the powerful Democracies throughout the world spoke with one voice that we will not give up our freedoms to Jihadists; that terrorist acts were unacceptable, and that we will never give up the fight until we win.

If such a thing happened, the murdering Jihadists would find it very difficult to maintain the morale that keeps them a force.

If there was no indication anywhere that we would eventually give up and go away, they would lose hope.

If there were not people like British MP George Galloway, Saddam collaborator and terrorist apologist, who at every opportunity gives the enemy hope that at some point the political will to win will evaporate, today's attack might never have happened. Today, after the horrendous attacks in London he again gave comfort to the enemy

He told the Commons it was the US-led coalition's
actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo which had inflamed hatred
of the West in the Muslim world.

Is it true that in Mr Galloway's World, the response to the attacks on New York and Washington should have been ignored and that the Taliban and al Qaeda fascists should have been left alone to continue to train and plan and kill in addition to enslaving the people of Afghanistan? That by doing this they would have left Britain alone? That all they wanted was to destroy America and once that goal was accomplished, the murderous thugs would have gone quiescently back to sleep and left the rest of the world be. Had Mr Galloway been Prime Minister would he have told his ally and friend the United States to "Fuck off. Better you than me"? Is that what he truly believes?

Or is he in the employ of the enemy as he was in the employ of Saddam?

If one of the aims of terrorism is to divide the will of the people so that they become "combat ineffective" then George Galloway is quite obviously susceptible to the tactic.

Mr Galloway urged the government to remove people in the
UK from "harm's way" by ending the occupation of Iraq and focusing on
finding a real solution to conflicts in the Middle East.

June 27, 2005

It seems clear that with the Kelo decision, action must be taken to preserve private property rights from crooked politicians and State governments. The new definition of eminent domain, as recently established by the Left side of the Supreme Court means that anyone, rich or poor, can be kicked out of their home so the property may be acquired by WalMart.

"Now that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, they
will," said Dick Saha, 75, who in May won a six-year fight to keep
Coatesville, Pa., from seizing his farm.

"We have four horses.
My two daughters have some land we gave them and the grandkids come
down and ride the horses," Saha said. The town, he said, "decided they
needed our property for a golf course."

Eminent Domain used to mean that government could only acquire private land for a public works project like a road or a dam. Now "public works" has been redefined to include shopping malls and golf courses.

Eminent Domain used to mean that your home could be acquired only by the "public"; now it means your land could be confiscated to be given to someone else.

And not even a "poor" someone else; no a filthy rich someone else. A land developer or a corporation.

wealthy investors and city leaders had been given the power to run
people from their homes to make way for new development. The line
between public and private property has been blurred, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor said in
her dissent, and no home is safe.

The Government in the US is supposed to exist to protect private property not take it away and give it to high tax-paying enterprises owned by wealthy developers at the expense of some old person paying lower taxes on less "valuable" property.

Since it is clear that the Supreme Court can not be trusted with correctly interpreting the Fifth Amendment, the next political campaign should be about Amending the Constitution to precisely say that Government can not abrogate the private property rights of citizens by taking their property and giving it to other citizens in a for-profit venture.

Is that too much to ask?

Failing that, or perhaps in addition to that, each State should amend their Constitutions with similar words. As of now, only two State's Constitutions have such words. However, since the Supreme Court has essentially interpreted the US Constitution this way, those State's Constitutions are in legal limbo with regards to this matter.

This is what happens when you lose respect for private property rights; rights which have been under assault by the Left for decades.

It's time we defend something that is quintessentially American: Private property.

And the time is now.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private
property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large
corporations and development firms." - Chief Justice William Rehnquist